The 1951 film version of Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein's groundbreaking operetta, Show Boat, is one of the most beloved movie musicals of all time. The highest grossing picture of 1951, it has attracted several generations of appreciative audiences through countless theatrical re-releases and on home video. This DVD release showcases Show Boat's justly famous Technicolor cinematography better than any other previous video format. The opening sequence alone could well serve as a demo for the visual capabilities of the DVD medium. No motion picture, before or since, has the rich, incredibly saturated palette of colors displayed in Show Boat. Although this DVD version was made from the most recent Technicolor restoration of this film, there are still a few scenes (especially large blue speckles in the Ol' Man River sequence) which could benefit from digital cleaning and enhancement. Considering that Show Boat is approaching its fiftieth anniversary this year, these minor flaws do not seriously detract from the overall excellence of the image. Alas, the same can't be said for the sound. Although MGM recently did a surround stereo mix from the original multi track recordings of Show Boat, this DVD uses an older monaural mix, which while clean and dynamic, is no match for the superb picture. The current laserdisc version uses the surround stereo mix and it sounds truly awesome. The laserdisc also has running commentary by the film's director, George Sidney, which should have been included on this DVD. Warner Bros., the current owners of this film, should reissue Show Boat on DVD with a 5:1 mix derived from the surround stereo. Then the sound would equal Show Boat's spectacular picture quality. Also, Ava Gardner's own lovely vocals should be re-inserted into the picture in place of Annette Warren's dubbing. Today's audiences would find Gardner more convincing in the songs as her fine singing voice more closely matches her superb acting performance as the tragic Julie and an older audience grew up on Gardner's vocals, which were included on the best-selling Show Boat soundtrack album.

Although this version of Show Boat has its detractors, especially among purists who prefer the stage and earlier black and white screen version, MGM's production is still an impressive achievement with several key sequences that are visually the most stunning examples of color art direction and cinematography ever committed to film. The score is performed beautifully by Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Marge and Gower Champion and especially William Warfield, whose definitive, magnificent, moving performance of the classic Ol' Man River, has become the standard by which all past, present and future renditions of this song will be judged. In fact, everyone associated with this matchless film should feel justifiably honored. And this DVD is the best way to experience Show Boat, short of a theatrical re-release.

Don't let the SHOW BOAT leave without you! Come aboard for romance, comedy, heartbreak and tragedy.

Starring Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel and Ava Gardner, SHOW BOAT comes alive with music, color and heart.

For lovely Magnolia Hawks (Kathryn Grayson) the Cotton Blossom is home, until dashing gambler Gaylord Ravenal (Howard Keel) steals her heart. They leave for a whirlwind honeymoon, until many years later they re-discover the simple joys of life aboard the Cotton Blossom.

Julie Laverne (Ava Gardner), the half-caste singing darling of the Cotton Blossom, is driven to destruction while trying to pass herself off as a white citizen.

With Marge and Gower Champion, Agnes Moorehead, Joe E. Brown, Robert Sterling, William Warfield, and Lief Erikson.

Dazzling, heartfelt and very romantic.

There is only one thing that is disappointing about this DVD transfer. I don't understand why it is not in 5.1 Stereo. This movie was filmed in Magnetic 4 tract Stereo. When is use to run revivals at my theatre we had a magnetic print of this and the sound was awsome.The movie as a whole is BREATHTAKING in scope, color, sets, music and acting. You can not beat the old MGM musicals They did it right. I'm a background music freak as you all know by now. There are little suttle things like when Julie is on the riverboat bar after her boyfriend smacks her. The piano player is playing "Can't help loving that man" in the background. She then asks the bartender to give her a drink as she says "give me a neat ride." As she walks out on the deck the piano music turns to violins & orchestra changing keys (pitch) and playing the same song. It gives me goose pimples every time. That's some of the suttle stuff that made the MGM Musicals the best.This movie is beauty to the eyes, heart breaking at its best and a happy ending where you could just lay down and die,,,,,,after a good cry that is.Even thought the DVD isn't in Stereo it's still worth buying. I can watch this over and over again. A Classical Masterpiece.

Written a decade ago, Dinesh D'Souza's essay remains...in my estimate... a thought-provoking exploration of Political Correctness as it continues to prevail in some of the bastions of American Higher Education. The curriculum agenda of renowned universities of the Northeast and California is examined in particular. These schools established trends in determining an academic "orthodoxy" radically redefining the essentials of Liberal Arts core subjects and criteria applied to hire (and fire) professors assigned to teach them. Though opponents denounce D'Souza's anecdotal style and conservative sensibility, the evidence of massive assault on so-called Western thought taught by "anti-Canon" ideologues is manifest. "Hey! Hey!...Ho, Ho! WESTERN CIV. now must go!" was the slogan of Stanford University students several years ago celebrating abolition of the requirement that undergraduates receive exposure to Great Books in THE SURVEY course. That TIME...over 2000 years...and eminence of distinguished scholars from Erasmus and Thomas More to Mortimer Adler had validated "greatness" was not only rejected with disdain but asserted to prove THE CANON is racist and misogynistic. Readers of any political-educational pursuasion would find much of Dinesh D'Souza's essay engaging. Its tone, for the most part, is understated. The irony of who it will offend ...and how... will speak for itself. The Academic PC police are alive and well in US academia today. Their influence is effective in secondary (and even elementary!) schools in battles on the efficacy of bilingual education, self-esteem grading policies and, of course, The Classics. (HUCKLEBERRY FINN, long-regarded as yet the most distinguished American novel written, has been often banned as racist). Granted, when D'Souza wrote ILLIBERAL EDUCATION ten years ago he was not...nor claimed to be...an eminent writer or scholar. However: " OUT of the MOUTH of BABES..." Re-reading 1 9 8 4 with its Orwellian concepts of "Double-Think", "Newspeak" and Thought-Police might give "cause for pause". As well as perhaps a reading of Noble prize winner, Czeslaw Milosz classic examination of the totalitarian mentality, THE CAPTIVE MIND. A serious reader might even ponder some of the writings of Martin Heiddeger where the roots of DECONSTRUCTIONIST philosophy (and even PC "reading theories" by Post-Modernists like Professor Stanley Fish) can be traced. ILLIBERAL EDUCATION: The Politics of Sex and Race on Campus, may not be a great book. It certainly does not deal with a "great" subject. But it is a well-written informative tract; a fine study in the undisputed reality and effects of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in America's academia and education system...

Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza presents an interesting collection of case studies of the politics of Race and Sex on Campus. The main theme of the work is that the Western tradition of liberal education is being undermined by efforts to meet the demands for group representation in curriculum, student bodies and faculty appointments. He points out that, whereas the traditional notion of the university saw it as a forum for an open exchange of ideas, the current reality is a venue in which the ultimate goal is not truth arrived at through study and exchange, but dictated by faculty radicals in accord with their own political beliefs.

To support his thesis, D'Souza provides a series of cases studies of incidents at leading universities across the U.S. He begins with an report of the admissions policy at Berkeley which, at the time of his writing, admitted students competitively within racial groups, each of which is entitled to a percentage of the student body. The result of this is different standards for admission by members of various ethnic groups. He then proceeds to review the demands for multiculturalism, which leads to the abandonment of traditional classics to make room for works of women and contributions from non-western traditions. In doing this works whose value have been tested over decades or centuries are supplanted by clearly inferior works only because they represent contributions by members of underrepresented groups.. In faculty selection, standards have been established to ensure that certain groups are represented in various numbers in the academic departments. This creates both intellectual and practical problems. Whereas liberal education teaches students to search for universal standards of judgment which transcend particularities of race, gender and culture, illiberal education teaches a provincialism in which every group is encouraged to have its own provincial world view, which restricts the ability find commonality among all mankind. The practical problem is that the quotas often call for numbers of minority professors exceeding the pool of qualified contenders.

D'Souza concludes this book with three modest proposals. He proposes a program of Non-Racial Affirmative Action, which would permit the admission students who appear to possess academic potential not reflected in their academic records, rather than basing standards on group membership. The second suggestion is for Choice Without Separatism. Under this proposal, organizations open only to members of ethnic groups not would encouraged, but those promoting ideas, which may be predominately of interest to members of particular ethnic groups would be encourage, but on a non-exclusive basis. The third proposal is for a curriculum searching for Equality and Classics. Rather than dismissing classical works on the basis that they represent a limited world view, they should be studied for the principals of equality which many contain and which often played a role in their selection as classics.

The weakness of Illiberal Education is that it often seems to be a merely collection of anecdotes which leave the reader wondering whether they really represent the reality of contemporary higher education or whether they merely reflect the most extreme aberrations. for many, including prospective college parents such as myself, this is an interesting study of disturbing trends in higher education.

It is a shame that Dinesh D'Souza did not continue his investigations into political correctness in the University. Unfortunately, since this book was first published, nothing has changed. I read this while completing my Ph.D. It rang true then, and still does.

D'Souza is a master of rhetoric and this book is no exception. I am a voracious reader who can always find some nuggets in whatever I am reading. I appreciated D'Souza's insights into Islam and the current wave of Islamic fundamentalism. I laughed out loud at many of the analogies he made, including relativism and Torquemada. I concurred with his belief that America is a great country.

My differences lie in the fact that he sees things so completely in black or white. He spits out the term multiculturalism so many times that he might as well have used the term "bleeding heart liberal" instead. He demonizes multiculturalists on pg 170 by saying that "multiculturalists hold that there are no universal standards by which cultures can be judged better or worse." He contradicts this on page 171 by himself stating "I am not suggesting that there is any absolute standard by which one can proclaim cultures superior or inferior." He falls back on relativism when it serves his arguments, but denounces it when it weakens his position. I am not surprised that he does this, to some extent all writers do this, liberal, conservative or in-between.

If you are looking for interesting arguments that cut a broad swath across today's discourse, this book will be a quick read. If you are hoping for greater depth on the issues facing America as a nation, this isn't the book.

After watching an interview of Mr. D'Souza a few days ago. I was so impressed with his answer, presentation and his intellectual prowess that I put aside my copy of John Adams and my edition of the "Qur'an", a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and picked up his book. I started the Ali translation because as a fan of Sun Tzu I wanted to know the enemy who wanted to make war on my country and me as well.

After watching this interview and the unique outlook that Mr. D'Souza brought to the issue of America and its foreign and domestic enemies I picked up "What's so great about America." I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by the time I finished. That I could finish it in only two days meant that it was gripping and an easy and interesting read.

What an amazing, rational and reasoned view of America from a past, present and futuristic position. Mr. D'Souza holds a mirror up to all of us from both an outside and an inside perspective and makes us see some unpleasant truths, yet shows us the silver lining as well.

Unfortunately most Americans cannot even imagine what we here in this great country look like to the rest of the world. Unless of coarse one has traveled, it is difficult to judge the bounty, in comparison to so many we all, I say again WE ALL, black, red, yellow, white and other, have here in America. Being a military career retiree I have been blessed with that unique opportunity to see the world and develop a healthy respect, admiration and love of country which Mr. D'Souza speaks of. I think that graduation from high school should include a weeklong survival trip to a third world country to open the eyes of our young people.

Mr. D'Souza has a decidedly unique perspective on so many issues that face us in the global arena today. It is sad that our TV talk shows host and Newspaper editors have lost this talent for true unbiased reporting and his simple honesty on so many issues. It is just impossible for the Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly's of the world to address these issues as candidly and honestly as Mr. D'Souza seems to do.

Of course the most refreshing part of this book was that Mr. D'souza was not flaunting any political or particular ideology like most of us do. He was truly being fair and balanced, applauding and condemning both sides equally I think.

This impressive "tell it like it was and is" book at first made me a little squeamish, nearly putting it down and going back to my previous reads after the first 10 pages or so. That was because I probably had the same reaction most people do after reading the first chapter. I started to think hey, this guy is just knocking America and is nothing more than an advertising agent for Osama Bin Laden or some other Middle Eastern anti-American wacko and hate monger. Who does he think he is!

But I stuck it out and read a little further and then realized with humble reevaluation that he was right in all that he was saying. It was my own ego and personal pride that had flared up in premature indignation at being called so many bad things, which were simply his relaying of what was in the minds of some of those on the outside looking in.

I realized after a little more self-critical evaluation as a member of a larger society, and after putting my temper on hold. That what he was saying was true down to the last point. We are a representation of those sinful, deviant, hedonistic and disgusting things, in some parts of our culture, like Hollywood and the film Industries, the Porn Industries and various other institutions, which other cultures see when they evaluate America. Even if we as individuals, families and/or communities do not participate in those degrading acts or industries, it is a part of the American culture and that is what the Islamic and Muslim societies find disgusting and intolerable. In a sense they hate today's excessive liberalism and unethical progressiveness, which seems to have no more of a moral compass than a rabbit or a bunch of Gardner snakes.

But what Mr. D'Souza finally begins to make clear is that this is the tendency others have to only see the tarnished brass and pewter fixtures of our society and by doing so ignore the silver and gold that ornaments the American people and many of our institutions as well.

There are still plenty of Tocqueville worthy individuals and communities left our there to respect and 9-11 also proved that there is a grand and good spirit in America that rest just beneath the surface in great and vast numbers, just like the Fremen' in the movie "DUNE". We are better in so many areas than most think and we should not be ashamed of it.

If I had been advising Mr. D'Souza however, I would have recommended his last statement be a saying from John Steuart Mill, which would have fit our post 9-11 character beautifully.

Slightly modified for the 21st century, it goes like this, "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A citizen who has nothing for which he/she is willing to fight, nothing they care about more than their personal safety, are miserable creatures who has no chance of being free...unless made and kept so by the exertions of better beings than themselves."

It would have fit his premise perfectly that America is worth supporting, defending, cherishing and being proud of. Great job Mr. D'Souza and I promise not to say, "I am also writing a book" if I ever get the honor to meet you...

What a shame 21st century USA is so polarized where being a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican (etc.) means either entirely accepting without question ideas along party or ideological lines -- or entirely without question rejecting them. People don't want to give "the (domestic political) enemy" a full hearing, let alone even partly CONSIDER a foe's arguments, even if they're reasoned and make actually make SENSE.

It's a shame because this book (published by the conservative publishing house Regnery, which is itself like waving a red flag in front of a bull for some people) is so engaging,
well-written, convincing and solid that Dinesh D'Souza may one day be considered a modern day Alexis de Tocqueville.

Three fascinating levels mark this highly perceptive book:
1. D'Souza, who became a US citizen in 1991, shares how his life would have been quite different if he had grown up in his native India.
2. He makes fascinating observations about how US life and culture differ from various parts of the world, especially the Third World. These are the ones future generations may consider on the same level as de Tocqueville's.
3. And then there is material directly related to the book's title. He makes the case, in a nutshell, that other cultures (especially fundamentalist Islamic) detest the United States
because Americans are inner-directed and can write their own life's script, while Islamic culture seeks a life controlled and dictated by others.

One key conclusion certainly will not endear him to Islamic fundamentalists. He says the Islamic world is nothing without oil revenues.

"The only reason it (the Islamic world) makes the news is by killing people," he writes. "When is the last time you opened the newspaper to read about a great Islamic discovery or invention? While China and India, two other empires that were eclipsed by the West, have embraced Western technology and even assumed a leadership role in some areas, Islam's contributions to modern science and technology is negligible."

In this book, written after 911, he concludes that terrorism is merely "a desperate strike against a civilization that the fundamentalists know they have no power to conquer" so they try to "disrupt and terrify the people of America and the West."

The book is worth its price ALONE for his observations on how American culture differs from the third world and many Islamic countries: Americans have to be convinced they are fighting a war for noble reasons; young people go away to college and don't return, whereas in other countries this would be like "abandoning one's offspring"; other cultures cherish age, the US worships youth; people welcome visitors for long periods in the Third World where Americans want to get rid of visitors within days. And more.

D'Souza also takes on the "multiculturalists" who, he writes, detest the melting pot idea and "want immigrants to be in America but not of America." And he shows many flashes
of great wit. Two of them:
--On French criticism of the US: "Many Americans find it hard to take the French critique seriously, coming as it does from men who carry handbags."
--On calls for reparations for African-Americans (he completely DEMOLISHES arguments for reparations) he writes debating foe Jesse Jackson: "I found the concept of this rich, successful man -- who arrived by private jet, who speaks at the Democratic
National Convention, whose son is a congressman -- identifying himself as a victim of oppression a bit puzzling and amusing."

D'Souza decimates critics' arguments against American foreign policy, history and culture. . But his greatest analysis is how World War II's "Greatest Generation," tempered by surviving the Great Depression and the brutal war, upheld traditional values by cherishing necessity and duty -- only to fail to replicate these values in their offspring who made answering their inner voices, pursing their own desires and personal authenticities the focus of their lives....until. Sept. 11.

"Only now are those Americans who grew up during the 1960s coming to appreciate the virtues,...of this older sturdier culture of courage, nobility and sacrifice," he writes. "It
is this culture that will protect the liberties of all Americans."

I've had the pleasure of reading two other books by Mr. D'Souza (End of Racism and What's so Great About America), so I was quick to order this one. When I first looked at the format of the book, I wasn't sure I was going to be happy with it. Each chapter is a response to a letter that he received. Then I was concerned that it would simply be a re-hash of the other two books. As I started to read it, I became as transfixed as I did with his other writings.

Mr. D'Souza doesn't claim to be the original thinker of this philosophy (Conservatism), but he certainly explains it better than anyone I have ever read.

He is absolutely right about the liberal argument against conservatism. There is no solid liberal argument that will stand up to it, simply because the liberal idea will not support itself. The only true way to achieve the liberal goals is through conservative practice. Except for the argument (review - Political romanticism) about Money vs. Power, I have not read one argument against this book that even came close to making an argument that made sense.

Mr. D'Souza has done it again, and I highly recommend this book for reading. Then you should pass it along to a friend.

I just received D'Souza's book, so I haven't had the chance to read every chapter. The few I have read were very informative, entertaining, and on target concerning the main differences between liberals and conservatives. D'Souza's wry sense of humor is definitely a plus. It's interesting, but hardly startling, that those who gave the book one star are the sort of liberal who resorts to "postmodernist gibberish" and ad hominem attacks when confronted with facts and common sense. The very things Mr. D'Souza says liberals resort to when they want to avoid hearing the truth about themselves. Referring to Mr. D'Souza as "The Gunga Din of Conservatism" was supposed to be insulting, I guess. I gather the person who wrote that mistakenly believes that Gunga Din was a member of an oppressed minority in need of protection from evil, conservative white men. If so, then he is sadly ignorant of both Kipling AND D'Souza. I feel this is an excellent book that should, but won't, be required reading for all college freshmen BEFORE they are assaulted with liberal hogwash by their left-wing professors. This book deserves SIX stars!

In this slim yet strong new book, "Letters to a Young Conservative," Dinesh D'Souza presents a discussion aimed to those entering the liberal bastion of academia. The reader benefits from the author's political experience from his days as founder of the Dartmouth Review, to his work as domestic policy analyst under Ronald Reagan.

D'Souza covers a wide array of topics that a student will likely hear on campus from the true nature of political correctness to the causes it champions such as affirmative action, abortion, gun control, anti-globalization, etc. D'Souza can be amusing and irreverant in his descriptions and stories, but is always successful in exposing the liberal agenda truthfully and accurately.

Although D'Souza could have expanded his discussion on certain areas, "Letters to a Young Conservative" is a great start for anyone who seeks a broader understanding of politics and the rationale behind various political issues.

This book was hard to put down. He said some things that were true. He said some things that were disturbing and he said some things that were quite wrong. His arguments were very logical and persuasive to people who feel as if they are looking at an issue "objectively". It is okay to consider the things you already know. After considering outside knowledge, D'Souza was correct in that white racism is not the only thing bringing Black people down. The fact of the matter is if white racism disappears tomorrow, things in Black America will not immediately get better. The "race merchants", as he calls them, realize this but they also know life does not start to get better until it is severely reduced in head and heart. The civil rights leaders want to build up Black people and they tell Black people this to their faces. The fact of the matter is that you have a middle class Black American population who is cut off in many ways from both its white brethren and its lower class Black brethren and this can lead to paranoia and rage, if not disillusionment and beliefs of betrayal. Also, this middle class often has felt they had to not only assimilate to the Majority Culture, but "out-white" white people to have a chance at being successful. This does not suggest that these people want to be thugs, it is just that they may give up things that make them comfortable. The underclass is completely victimized. We talk about their crime and everything and it is not entirely fair. This may sound like some liberal drivel but these people want the same things that everyone wants: money, power, and respect, in that order. The fact of the matter is their sphere of influence is much smaller than many of us who have had these opportunities. This may seem to be off the point, but D'Souza neglects to consider these issues and the role white racism, or racism period, plays in these developments. The fact of the matter is that these discussions appear too complex to be reduced to cool buzzwords like "racism is the problem" and "Black folks need to do for themselves."

The End of Racism is a book worth reading, even if you do not agree with its conclusions. The biggest reason is that he puts up a good argument and too many people who have the "right" opinion fail to construct arguments to bolster their case or attempt to convert people to their view. This book gets five stars except for two things. First, his tone is entirely too condescending and that takes away from the points he makes. As a result, he appears to preach to the converted. Second of all, he completely misuses his position as a person of color. Because he is not white, he believes that he is in the position to take Black people to task and he acts on it. He should have used his position to speak about oppression and the results of victimization because this points can be extended to poor white people in Appalachia, who no one talks about, except for that so-called race merchant Jesse Jackson. He might have reached the same conclusions but he would have made better use of his standing as a "person of color."

Meticulously documented and skilfully argued, Dinesh D'souza's THE END OF RACISM is an ambitious--at times ackwardly belligerent--attack on multiculturalism.

He exposes the fallacious premises of liberal race ideology and proceeds to detail the true cause of black/hispanic underachievement in America: cultural inferiority. While there is certainly a measure of truth to this pronouncement, his automatic assignment of all black social pathologies to cultural factors is

scholastically problematic.

Some deficiencies--such as those revealed by intelligence tests--have a demonstrable heritable component. Others can be credibly attributed to historical oppression. Neither explanation was adequately refuted by D'Souza.

On balance, however, his opinions are intellectually sound. He disrespectfully but honestly reckons the motives and worth of the Race Industry and properly places the burden of progress at the doorstep of the black community. Moreover, his analyses, while pointed, are candidly courageous. Others have documented the technical merit of his observations, but I think any open- minded person will agree with 90% of what Dinesh has to say.

I stongly recommend that you read it.

"Not since Gunnar Myrdal's 'An American Dilemma'" has any book looked so searchingly at the nature of race in America. This was a statement by Thomas Sowell regarding his review of The End of Racism. Regardless if you agreed or disagreed with D'Souza's conclusions, you can't objectively deny Sowell's assessment. Unfortunatly, those who find his logic and conclusions unpalatable have systematically reverted to misrepresenting his arguments rather than facing them squarely. I guess it is easier to knock down imaginary arguments rather than real ones. Some common misrepresentations include:

1. D'Souza questions whether slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination etc bear "any" responsibility for the state of Black America. Reality: D'Souza is very clear in saying that these factors are the VERY REASON that blacks are in their state today. These influences, according to D'Souza, gave blacks a unique experience in America through which a culture of resistance wa! s eventually fostered. It is this vestigial cultural orientation, D'Souza argues, which today most impedes black progress in a society that is quite different from the 19th and early 20th century.

2. D'Souza doesn't care about white racism, he only wants to abolish white guilt. Reality: D'Souza ultimately concludes that while racism is a problem, it is a minor problem. Shocking as this is to many, it is no less true. Civil rights activists committed to struggles of yesteryear have every incentive to beat the drum of "white racism" past the point of diminshing returns - particulary when they are dependent on such activities in order to maintain notoriety and to continue living such plush lifestyles. As for white guilt, D'Souza would probably have no problem with whites feeling as guilty as they want so long as that guilt has little role in policymaking. It is white guilt which has driven racial policy in America for the past 40 years and the black underclass is in ! worse condition than EVER.

3. D'Souza doesn't believe th! at racism exists anymore - just "rational discrimination" - which, as Ellis Cose said, is "to put not to fine a point on it, discrimination against people who ought to be discriminated against." Reality: D'Souza's argument here is not that complex. He clearly conceeds to the immorality of such behavior - especially as to its demoralizing and hurtful effect on law abiding black males who have PhD's and not a spot on their criminal record. Yet the act of discrimination (such as a taxicab not picking up black men) is occouring precicely because the taxicab driver, or store owner, or little-old lady, etc. does not have any information on that person. Taxicab drivers have had many blacks beat the fare or leave no tip (moreso than whites) or have had other drivers regail them with stories of the blacks that held them at gunpoint (again, at a higher rate than whites). Korean store owners have had similar experiences - including having to sit on the roof of their ! store with a rifle to ward off looting black teenage males. If you talk to any restaurant waiter, they will tell you that, on average, blacks tip much more poorly than whites. As such, many sigh a groan of frustration or despair when recieving a table of blacks. The point is that these actions are not "racism" in any conventional sense because they do not stem from any subjective animus towards blacks. These are simply people who are acting on what their, or another's experience has taught them. Some can argue that these generalizations are unfair - but they are exactly that - generalizations, not racism.

4. D'Souza asserts that because a few blacks owned slaves it was "not at all racially charged." Reality: D'Souza clearly says that slavery was fraught with undertones of race, but that the plane of causation was in reverse: that is, slavery caused racism - not that racism caused slavery. One only has to look that the history of slavery in the world to se! e that it certainly wasn't unique to Western Civilization. ! What was unique, however, were the philisophical priciples of Western civilization that ultimatley destroyed this most enduring institution in human history - that is, slavery. Thus, many rationales were used to justify the enslavement of blacks (who were, by the way, enslaved predominatley in the Americas because they were abundant in supply and easy to maintain as slaves - certainly in contrast to the indigenous American Indians). Most of these rationales, D'Souza argues, were founded on the principle that blacks were inferior - that is - "made to be slaves." Ultimately, racism was the rational many used to justify an activity that flatly contravened with America's most cherished principle of individual freedom.

5. D'Souza portrays Columbus as a humanitarian, slavery as benevolent, and segregation as a system intended to help blacks. Reality: In no way does D'Souza portray Columbus or any of the other European explorers as anything close to "humanitarian.&q! uot; D'Souza does use passages out of Columbus' journal to show that Columbus was indeed impressed with the Indians he first encountered whom he described as among the "most beautiful and gracious people he had ever seen" - but that's about as far as he discusses Columbus. Yet D'Souza fully conceeds the "occupation and brutality" of Western colonialism that followed in Columbus' wake but qualifies it by stating that there was not, in fact, anything unique about it other than the fact that it went against a still evolving Western thought concerning human and property rights. Ironically, these principles are used selectively by contemporary American Indian activists to condemn a the very civilization who actually put them into practice. In no way does D'Souza say that slavery was even close to benevolent - only that slaves were thought of as property. As such, they were expected to yield a return and could not do so if they were excessivly abused. The same si! mple logic prevented farmers from excessively beating a hor! se that pulls a carriage or an ox that pulls a plow. D'Soouza did say that segregation was, in part, designed to protect blacks in the sense that it was perceived by paternalistic Southerners to keep blacks away from a violent racist minority that would certainly do them harm.

D'Souza's arguments are coherent and easy to follow. His policy prescriptions (such as the abolition of affirmative action and repealing of anti-discrimination laws in the private sector) are debateable - yet they are also logical. This book and other books such as these are difficult for many modern day "race-merchant" liberals to come to terms with. It is easier to insinuate the author said something he did not, in fact, say - then to attack the insinuation. How hypocritical it is for anyone to condemn D'Souza for using extreme and moderate voices interchangeably in his text (although quoting them accurately)- and then to turn right around and compare him to Hitler or David Duke and call h! is a Social Darwinist. If liberals ever expect to win the intellectual battles, they had better get past the idea that their adversaires are "not in error, but in sin."

garbage from the extreme right...don't need to say anything else...

Hitler said that the "big lie" is more effective than little ones in deceiving the masses and D'Souza (like his co-conspirators David Horowitz and Rush Limbaugh) attempts such a feat again here in trying to present a big lie as truth. If the corridors of higher education have been "infiltrated" by "radical leftists" so effectively and for so long, then why have the conservative and radical right been growing in strength over the last 20 years while the left has suffered only setbacks??? Universities have NOT been a training ground for politically correct liberals and bleeding hearts - in fact the opposite is true - university educations once valued for their own sake, are now valued only insofar as they provide job training and business/government networking. Follow the money trail - if research funding for universities comes from corporations and government then what kind of output would one expect - yeah, that's right - pro-corporate and pro-government research and pro-corporate/pro-government graduates. Duh! The decline of the university is the direct result of the capitalist system that D'Souza and his ilk proudly defend. This is pure crypto-fascist drivel. If you want some truth about the decline of America and American education read Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, and especially Noam Chomsky. This pamphlet is not even worthy of being used as toilet paper.

Illiberal Education opens with the author noting that, while on the surface the universities of the 1990s are placid compared to the disturbance-rocked institutions of the late 1960s and early 1970s, there are indications that the Left-wing American campus is alive and well. After highlighting other examples of curriculum deconstruction in favor of minority protest voices, Mr. D'Souza thoroughly documents the case of Stanford University, where several hundred protesting and office-occupying student radicals forced President Donald Kennedy into initiating the process whereby the school's much-lauded core course in Western Civilization, which included readings from literary giants of the West (Aristotle, Augustine, Shakespeare, and others), was eliminated. In its place, was implemented a nebulous course entitled "Cultures, Ideas, and Values" which includes, in addition to some token classics retained, the works of Ernesto Cardinal (poetry) and reggae lyrics and Rastafarian poetry (music). And if excising the course of most of its content was not enough, Stanford offers professors "correct" guidelines indicating how to treat their subject material. For example, students of Shakespeare's Tempest should be taught "the Caliban_Prospero encounter as a model, in part, for colonizer-colonized relations."

In addition to diluting the curriculum, Mr. D'Souza notes that many college administrations, terrified by the threat of protest and disturbance, have "discourage[d] faculty from presenting factual material that provokes or irritates minority students." As an illustration, he presents the case of Professor Stephen Thernstrom of Harvard, a leader in the "new social history" school which emphasizes the experience of common people in historiography. In his class on the "Peopling of America", the professor read aloud from the journals of Southern plantation owners in order to illustrate some of the justifications of slavery proffered by 19th century America. For his efforts, Professor Thernstrom, himself a noted progressive, was lambasted in the campus newspaper by the chairman of the Black Student Association as "racially insensitive" and investigated by the University Committee on Race Relations. Unsupported by the administration, Professor Thernstrom decided to discontinue the class. He is quoted in Illiberal Education as declaring that "It just isn't worth it. Professors who teach race issues encounter such a culture of hostility, among some students, that some of these questions are simply not teachable anymore, at least not in an honest, critical way."

After describing the shadow which issues of race and gender cast upon collegiate admissions and scholarship, Mr. D'Souza discusses their effect on campus life. In keeping with their aim to promote "diversity", universities have taken to recognizing and funding separatist institutions for minority groups: women's unions, gay and lesbian alliances, black "theme houses", Hispanic fraternities and sororities, and the like. In many cases the existence of these institutions confirms Mr. D'Souza's assertion that many of the students admitted under affirmative action find themselves unable to compete once they arrive on campus and, as a result, experience insecurity and isolation.

In their quest to soothe minority sensitivities further, institutions have even adopted various "speech codes" which threaten students with sanctions for words or actions alleged to be "insensitive" to individuals on the basis of race, sex, or sexual orientation. At the University of Michigan, then-President (now president of Princeton) Harold Shapiro mandated "sensitivity training programs" to re-educate students in the new orthodoxy on race issues. His successor James Duderstadt took it a step further and promulgated a "speech code" of sensitivity (since struck down by a federal court) which all but made reasoned discourse on the race issue impossible and which was so restrictive as to provoke an ACLU lawsuit.

American colleges and universities are undergoing revolutionary changes. The standards of what and how students are taught are being revised at the same time the standards by which they are admitted are being altered. In the name of "diversity", the very habits and attitudes of campus life are being remoulded. Given that the nation's institutions of higher learning hold the key to its future, the entirety of society should be informed and concerned with the prospects offered by these changes. While few people will agree with the whole argument of Illiberal Education, the book makes an admirable contribution to a greater awareness of American 'higher education'.

Entirely agree with the reviewers that indicate that this guide is a waste of time and money. I found that Rita Mulcahy's book is far superior to this book. Ward's guide only includes questions and does not provide any insight into how to prepare for the exam. In fact, the questions tend to indicate that much more preparation is required to pass the exam. Many of questions reference very specific and arcane management concepts that are not useful. I regret purchasing this book and fortunately came across Rita's book and focused on her preparation advice. I credit the Mulchahy book with passing the PMP exam with a 86% score.

Hi PMP friends:

I studied the PMBOK first and then use this book to TEST my knowledge and prepare for my PMP examknation which I am going to take in the middle of October/01.

I think this book is OK. I wish they cover more on the NON-PMBOK material. Not 2 sure I can pass the exam just by using this book.

Update: I just pass the PMP exam. I downgrade my rating on this book because it doesn't help 2 much in the actual exam.
I want to order "PMP EXAM PREP" but it is not available until the end of October/01, i.e., AFTER my PMP examination.

I can only wish myself good luck as there are so few PMP examination preparation material in the market, it makes the preparation really hard.

Update: I just pass the PMP exam. This guide doesn't help a lot.

As the title says, this is what the book is all about - Practice questions on all 9 Knowledge Areas plus Professional Responsibility Domain (40 per section) and a full length practice test. The Study Guide in the title must refer to the reasonably detailed answers to all the questions in the book. This is helpful but you will find the same in most of the books by competing authors.

The only thing different about this book is the short introduction to each Knowledge Area which I found extremely helpful. This introduction (1-2 pages) rates the the level of difficulty of the particular knowledge area and some very good tips on how to handle the section on the actual PMP. If you have access to this book from your company PM library, by all means read the relevant pages (less than 15 in the whole book) to benefit from the book. Otherwise, I am not sure if I would recommend the book for the price it is listed at. Books that are similar but provide the reader much higher value are 'PMP Exam Prep' by Rita Mulcahy and 'PMP Study Guide' by Kim Heldman. You may benefit by reading my reviews on these books and other Project Management books for more information on learning Project Management and passing the PMP. Best of luck in passing the exam!